The Frequency of Implants Placed in the Dental Implants Department of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences in Terms of Surgical and Prosthetic Factors
Document Type : مقالههای پژوهشی
Authors
1 Assistant Professor, Dental Research Center, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
2 Professor, Dental Implant Research Center, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
3 Dental Student, Dental Student Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
10.48305/v0i0.1352
Abstract
Introduction: To date, no data have been reported on the demographics of implants placed in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. The aim of this study was to collect data systematically from implant records and construct a database to improve access to them.
Materials & Methods: In this descriptive study, all the patient records were reviewed from September 2012 to September 2016. The data in the records was extracted in terms of the demographic medical history, surgical, prosthetic and follow-up factors. Finally, data were analyzed with SPSS 23, using descriptive statistical methods.
Results: A total of 640 patients have received 1890 dental implants, with 70.5% of the implants placed in the 41‒70-year age group and the greatest number of implants inserted in the posterior mandible (37.2%) and the first molar region. Bone augmentation procedures were performed in 50.5% of implants, with the highest incidence in the anterior maxilla. The most commonly used bone material was Cerabone and the most commonly used membranes were Osseoguard and Cytoplast. In addition, the most commonly used implant brand was Zimmer. Regarding dimensions of the implants, a diameter of 4.1 mm and a length of 12 mm were most often utilized. Bone-level implants (59.5%) were used more frequently than tissue-level implants (40.5%).
Conclusion: According to the results of this study, it can be concluded that the majority of patients referring to the Implant Department of Isfahan Dental School are over 50 years of age and bone augmentation techniques are also used in over 50% of cases.
Key words: Dental implant, Dental record, Implant-supported dental prosthesis.
Materials & Methods: In this descriptive study, all the patient records were reviewed from September 2012 to September 2016. The data in the records was extracted in terms of the demographic medical history, surgical, prosthetic and follow-up factors. Finally, data were analyzed with SPSS 23, using descriptive statistical methods.
Results: A total of 640 patients have received 1890 dental implants, with 70.5% of the implants placed in the 41‒70-year age group and the greatest number of implants inserted in the posterior mandible (37.2%) and the first molar region. Bone augmentation procedures were performed in 50.5% of implants, with the highest incidence in the anterior maxilla. The most commonly used bone material was Cerabone and the most commonly used membranes were Osseoguard and Cytoplast. In addition, the most commonly used implant brand was Zimmer. Regarding dimensions of the implants, a diameter of 4.1 mm and a length of 12 mm were most often utilized. Bone-level implants (59.5%) were used more frequently than tissue-level implants (40.5%).
Conclusion: According to the results of this study, it can be concluded that the majority of patients referring to the Implant Department of Isfahan Dental School are over 50 years of age and bone augmentation techniques are also used in over 50% of cases.
Key words: Dental implant, Dental record, Implant-supported dental prosthesis.
1. Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Komarek A, van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of oral implant failures, up to abutment connection. J Periodontol 2007; 34(7): 610-7.
2. Busenlechner D, Furhauser R, Haas R, Mailath G, Pommer B, Watzek G. Long-term implant success at the Academy for Oral Implantology: 8-year follow-up and risk factor analysis. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2014; 44(3): 102-8.
3. Chen H, Liu N, Xu X, Qu X, Lu E. Smoking, radiotherapy, diabetes and osteoporosis as risk factors for dental implant failure: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013; 8(8): e71955.
4. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Smoking and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015; 43(5): 487-98.
5. Chuang SK, Wei LJ, Douglass CW, Dodson TB. Risk factors for dental implant failure: a strategy for the analysis of clustered failure-time observations. J Dent Res 2002; 81(8): 572-7.
6. Arisan V, Bolukbasi N, Ersanli S, Ozdemir T. Evaluation of 316 narrow diameter implants followed for 5-10 years: a clinical and radiographic retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21(3): 296-307.
7. Morales-Vadillo R, Leite FP, Guevara-Canales J, Netto HD, Miranda Chaves Md, Cruz F, et al. Retrospective studyof the survival and associated risk factors of wedge-shaped implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28(3): 875-82.
8. Abayev B, Juodzbalys G. Inferior alveolar nerve lateralization and transposition for dental implant placement. Part I: a systematic review of surgical techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2015; 6(1): e2.
9. Aghaloo TL, Misch C, Lin GH, Iacono VJ, Wang HL. Bone augmentation of the edentulous maxilla for implant placement: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31 (Suppl): S19-30.
10. Sennerby L, Roos J. Surgical determinants of clinical success of osseointegrated oral implants: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11(5): 408-20.
11. Shulman LB. Avoiding and coping with surgically related implant problems. Dental Implantology Update 1998; 9(4): 29-30.
12. Brennan M, Houston F, O'Sullivan M, O'Connell B. Demographics of implant placement and complications of a patient subgroup in a dental hospital population. J Ir Dent Assoc 2010; 56(2): 85-92.
13. Bornstein MM, Halbritter S, Harnisch H, Weber HP, Buser D. A retrospective analysis of patients referred for implant placement to a specialty clinic: indications, surgical procedures, and early failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23(6): 1109-16.
14. Brugger OE, Bornstein MM, Kuchler U, Janner SF, Chappuis V, Buser D. Implant therapy in a surgical specialty clinic: an analysis of patients, indications, surgical procedures, risk factors, and early failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30(1): 151-60.
15. Rasouli Ghahroudi AA, Homayouni A, Rokn AR, Kia F, Kharazifard MJ, Khorsand A. Frequency of dental implants placed in the esthetic zone in dental clinic of Tehran University: a descriptive study. Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2015; 12(12): 906-12.
16. Lazzara R, Siddiqui AA, Binon P, Feldman SA, Weiner R, Phillips R, etal. Retrospective multicenter analysis of 3i endosseous dental implants placed over a five-year period. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7(1): 73-83.
17. Wagenberg B, Froum SJ. A retrospective study of 1925 consecutively placed immediate implants from1988to 2004. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21(1): 71-80.
18. Mundt T, Mack F, Schwahn C, Biffar R. Private practice results of screw-type tapered implants: survival and evaluation of risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21(4): 607-14.
19. Becker W, Sennerby L, Bedrossian E, Becker BE, Lucchini JP. Implant stability measurements for implants placed at the time of extraction: a cohort, prospective clinical trial. J Periodontol 2005; 76(3): 391-7.
)